after twenty plus years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to type.
$Zero
type.
what can i say, i'm a dedicated procrastinator.
so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
keyboard?
(oddly enough, it seems like i don't even look at the keyboard as it
is -- i rarely remember doing so anyway, only when i actually think
about whether i am or not).
about how long will it take to get up to a decent speed?
a couple weeks?
a couple months?
any idea?
how many actual total hours of practice should it take?
is my twenty plus years of alternate typing habits going to have any
bearing on the learning process?
are there any kind of studies on that?
how many people put it off for twenty plus years?
...
what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
of mine?
...
is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
to be?
how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
is that all it's cracked up to be?
will there actually _be_ any significant speed gain after twenty years
of daily doing it my two-fingered way?
is the advantage of watching the words appear on the screen as you
type as great of a benefit as it seems it would be?
-$Zero...
generate some new threads, you lazy fucks!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e7a2a1c85bbfeb9d
$Zero
still don't know how to type without looking at the keyboard.
those who just kept winging it two-fingered willy-nilly from the early
days.
i'll bet it's surprisingly high.
and that they have a pretty good disposable income, too.
lotsa baby boomers.
what a perfect market to capture with an engaging sixty second
commercial which artfully and amusingly convinces them that it would
be to their great advantage to finally learn how to type -- leaving
them no logical choice other than to buy some typing course on DVD or
whatever.
cha' ching!
$14.95
will that be MC, Visa, or Amex?
...
commercial airs in 20 major markets
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
...
cha' ching!
etc.
now that i have you on the phone, just to let you know, since you've
ordered our easy-schmeasy intuitive typing course, you're eligible to
receive a special discount on our nifty schmancy pantsy ergonomic
flibbity flob device-o-rama.
50% off!
it normally sells for $225.
check out the video demonstration on our webpage.
it'll knock your socks off.
seriously.
it does X, Y and Z and makes A, B, and C ten times easier and more
efficient.
AND it saves you money, week after week.
it pays for itself in six months, easy.
plus it's fun.
cha' ching!
-$Zero...
after 25 years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to type.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/ff6fcb757570cadc
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> it would be interesting to find out what percentage of computer users
> still don't know how to type without looking at the keyboard.
>
> those who just kept winging it two-fingered willy-nilly from the early
> days.
>
> i'll bet it's surprisingly high.
>
> and that they have a pretty good disposable income, too.
I use all my fingers, however, I don't keep my fingers on the home
row, so I have to occasionally look down to locate where I am and I am
also occasionally misaligned. I have taken a typing class, but I
didn't learn to type in one.
$Zero
huh.
i'm checking out my typing right now and apparently, i'm not even
using my thumb for the spacebar. i only use my index fingers to type,
though i'm pretty fast, considering..
i do use some of my other fingers on my right hand when i'm manning
the arrow keys.
and maybe when i'm mostly using the mouse i might use an alternate
finger to click on a single key here and there, especially if my hand
is resting near the keyboard.
i guess this explains my lack of capital letters pretty well, huh?
i do seem to use my middle fingers for the shift keys and the enter
key respectively.
and when i do a copy command, i use my thumb for the {ctrl} key and my
index finger for the {ins} key.
interesting.
which tangentially leads me to thinking about a possibly funny scene
for a movie about some eccentric who, for no practical reason, types
only with his pinky fingers.
very visual.
-$Zero...
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
cha' ching!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/76439cf26bf114d0
boots
>after twenty plus years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to
>type.
>
>what can i say, i'm a dedicated procrastinator.
>
>so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
>creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
>keyboard?
>
>(oddly enough, it seems like i don't even look at the keyboard as it
>is -- i rarely remember doing so anyway, only when i actually think
>about whether i am or not).
>
>about how long will it take to get up to a decent speed?
>
>a couple weeks?
>
>a couple months?
>
>any idea?
It's no big deal really. The concept of "home keys" is essential.
Put the fingers of your left hand over the letters "asdf" and leave
them there lightly touching. Put the fingers of your right hand over
the keys "jkl;" and leave them there lightly touching. Use your
thumbs for the spacebar. Now keep your fingers there and use the
finger closest to the key you need. Habit forms quickly. Then you'll
get a new keyboard with different special-character placement and
you'll be fucked for a long time.
--
The sane answer, to madness, is insanity.
boots
I used a "standard" keyboard for many years and never needed to look.
Then I got a laptop and I've had the fucking thing for a decade and
still can't find much except the letters without looking. It's a
scam.
Bill Penrose
> so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
> creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
> keyboard?
Maybe. I took 'touch-typing' in Grade 9, a one-semester course. After
the first four weeks, I knew all there was to know. After that, it was
all about speed. It was about the only useful thing I got out of high
school.
You can get voice assisted typing tutors for $5 in the ancient
software bin at CompUSA or probably as a download from tucows or
downloads.com etc.
Dangerous Bill
sammy
> after twenty plus years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to
> type.
>
> what can i say, i'm a dedicated procrastinator.
>
> so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
> creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
> keyboard?
>
> (oddly enough, it seems like i don't even look at the keyboard as it
> is -- i rarely remember doing so anyway, only when i actually think
> about whether i am or not).
>
> about how long will it take to get up to a decent speed?
>
> a couple weeks?
>
> a couple months?
>
> any idea?
>
> how many actual total hours of practice should it take?
>
> is my twenty plus years of alternate typing habits going to have any
> bearing on the learning process?
>
> are there any kind of studies on that?
>
> how many people put it off for twenty plus years?
It should take about 3-4 weeks, I would think. Maybe less. The main
thing is to discipline yourself to type the real way and don't lapse
into the old routine.
>
> ...
>
> what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
> of mine?
>
> ...
>
> is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
> to be?
>
> how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
>
> is that all it's cracked up to be?
Definitely!
sammy
Actually Ctrl+C does the same thing, and is a much easier combination
to type.
$Zero
but Ctrl+C, etc. doesn't work everywhere that the other copy, cut, and
paste commands do. like in certain dialog windows, for instance.
and no, fingering-wise, it's not any easier to do.
-$Zero...
threading thru the history of clothing
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b47c8110c1c59759
$Zero
> On Dec 5, 3:41 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > after twenty plus years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to
> > type.
>
> > what can i say, i'm a dedicated procrastinator.
>
> > so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
> > creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
> > keyboard?
>
> > (oddly enough, it seems like i don't even look at the keyboard as it
> > is -- i rarely remember doing so anyway, only when i actually think
> > about whether i am or not).
>
> > about how long will it take to get up to a decent speed?
>
> > a couple weeks?
>
> > a couple months?
>
> > any idea?
>
> > how many actual total hours of practice should it take?
>
> > is my twenty plus years of alternate typing habits going to have any
> > bearing on the learning process?
>
> > are there any kind of studies on that?
>
> > how many people put it off for twenty plus years?
>
> It should take about 3-4 weeks, I would think. Maybe less.
to get up to the speed that i'm currently cranking out?
i highly doubt it.
> The main thing is to discipline yourself to type the real way
"the real way"... bwah!
not to mention that the stupid fucking QWERTY keyboard was designed
for the mechanics of the typewriter, not the optimal positioning of
letters for typing the human language on a non-mechanical computer.
> and don't lapse into the old routine.
just for kicks, i tried the home key multi-finger technique this
morning, as per boots suggestion elsewhere.
yikes.
it's not for me.
way too restrictive.
my finger muscles just don't work effectively in those ways.
years of attrition, maybe.
and while i'm sure that months of practice might train my finger
muscles eventually to match my current speed, i think that as far as
typing goes, i'm too far gone in my habits for it to be worth the
investment time at this point.
but before i discard it completely i'm gonna count how many words that
i can type per minute using my current method. if there's not at
least a speed improvement expection in excess of way more than 10 to
20%, it definitely wouldn't be worth it to me.
> > ...
>
> > what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
> > of mine?
>
> > ...
>
> > is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
> > to be?
>
> > how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
>
> > is that all it's cracked up to be?
>
> Definitely!
how would you know?
unless my speed was at least doubled, the typing without looking at
the keyboard feature would likely be way more of a value to moi.
Towse
I have never =in =my =life used {ctrl}{ins}.
^C ^V for me. ...
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 10:02 pm, sammy <utilizational...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 5, 10:22 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> and when i do a copy command, i use my thumb for the {ctrl} key and my
> >>> index finger for the {ins} key.
> >> Actually Ctrl+C does the same thing, and is a much easier combination
> >> to type.
>
> > but Ctrl+C, etc. doesn't work everywhere that the other copy, cut, and
> > paste commands do. �like in certain dialog windows, for instance.
>
> > and no, fingering-wise, it's not any easier to do.
>
> I have never =in =my =life used {ctrl}{ins}.
you don't know what you're missing!
> ^C ^V for me. ...
ick.
i've hated those for years.
stopped using them completely way way back.
as soon as i came across software programs that used different letters
for the same types of commands i decided to look elsewhere for more
universal alternatives. eventually i came across the much more
compliant operating-system based {ctrl}{ins}, etc.
of course, that was back in the days of nine inch monochrome monitors,
before the DOS based software companies smartened up and started using
some of the conventions that Macs programmers had been using across
all applications for years.
i only wish that someone would develop a better English typing
keyboard than the obsolete QWERTY SOB.
but it appears that we'll be stuck with that nonsense for many
generations.
Bill Penrose
> yikes.
> it's not for me.
> way too restrictive.
> my finger muscles just don't work effectively in those ways.
It's training. Your fingers will loosen up and work right if you train
them. Work it for a month and see the improvement. If you give up on
it, you're no worse off than before.
DB
$Zero
> On Dec 6, 7:34 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > yikes.
> > it's not for me.
> > way too restrictive.
> > my finger muscles just don't work effectively in those ways.
>
> It's training. Your fingers will loosen up and work right if you train
> them.
well yeah, but that takes lotsa time.
> Work it for a month and see the improvement.
i'd invest a maximum of two days of practice to determine that, but
only if i could verify that learning to type differently was worth my
time in the first place.
> If you give up on it, you're no worse off than before.
only for those who don't mourn over completely wasted time.
unless there's a vast expectation for major speed improvement, it's a
case of diminshing returns, timewise.
as it is, i can pretty much type about a tenth of the time that it
takes for me to think.
sorta.
that's why i posted all of those questions in the original post, which
no one seems to have any answers for.
in my way of thinking, researching the answers would be a far better
use of my time than learning how to type.
Towse
> On Dec 6, 10:39�pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
>> $Zero wrote:
>>> On Dec 6, 10:02 pm, sammy <utilizational...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 5, 10:22 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> and when i do a copy command, i use my thumb for the {ctrl} key and my
>>>>> index finger for the {ins} key.
>>>> Actually Ctrl+C does the same thing, and is a much easier combination
>>>> to type.
>>> but Ctrl+C, etc. doesn't work everywhere that the other copy, cut, and
>>> paste commands do. �like in certain dialog windows, for instance.
>>> and no, fingering-wise, it's not any easier to do.
>> I have never =in =my =life used {ctrl}{ins}.
>
> you don't know what you're missing!
>
>> ^C ^V for me. ...
>
> ick.
>
> i've hated those for years.
>
> stopped using them completely way way back.
>
> as soon as i came across software programs that used different letters
> for the same types of commands i decided to look elsewhere for more
> universal alternatives. eventually i came across the much more
> compliant operating-system based {ctrl}{ins}, etc.
Fine if you have a keyboard with an {ins} key.
I've never =EVER= had a problem with ^C ^V.
YMOV. So be it, klutzy person who can't be bothered learning how to type
with all the fingers and opposable thumbs that ghod gave him.
sammy
At least give yourself some time to build up speed before you give
up.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
> > > of mine?
>
> > > ...
>
> > > is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
> > > to be?
>
> > > how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
>
> > > is that all it's cracked up to be?
>
> > Definitely!
>
> how would you know?
Because I was once in the same boat as you and went through the same
transition.
>
> unless my speed was at least doubled, the typing without looking at
> the keyboard feature would likely be way more of a value to moi.
>
> -$Zero...
>
> threading thru the history of clothing
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b47c8110c1c59759- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 6, 10:39�pm, Towse <s...@towse.com> wrote:
> >> $Zero wrote:
> >>> On Dec 6, 10:02 pm, sammy <utilizational...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 5, 10:22 pm, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> and when i do a copy command, i use my thumb for the {ctrl} key and my
> >>>>> index finger for the {ins} key.
> >>>> Actually Ctrl+C does the same thing, and is a much easier combination
> >>>> to type.
> >>> but Ctrl+C, etc. doesn't work everywhere that the other copy, cut, and
> >>> paste commands do. �like in certain dialog windows, for instance.
> >>> and no, fingering-wise, it's not any easier to do.
>
> >> I have never =in =my =life used {ctrl}{ins}.
>
> > you don't know what you're missing!
ba'dum, chsh!
> >> ^C ^V for me. ...
>
> > ick.
>
> > i've hated those for years.
>
> > stopped using them completely way way back.
>
> > as soon as i came across software programs that used different letters
> > for the same types of commands i decided to look elsewhere for more
> > universal alternatives. eventually i came across the much more
> > compliant operating-system based {ctrl}{ins}, etc.
>
> Fine if you have a keyboard with an {ins} key.
every single keyboard i've ever seen or used had {ins} {shft} {ctrl}
and {del} keys.
> I've never =EVER= had a problem with ^C ^V.
you never came across software stuff that used ^C ^V for commands
other than copy and paste? lucky you.
> YMOV. So be it, klutzy person who can't be bothered learning how to type
> with all the fingers and opposable thumbs that ghod gave him.
you're so anal sometimes, did you know that Sal?
yikes.
...
recap:
how much faster will i be able to type?
is seeing the words appear on the screen really worth the time and
trouble?
how many people have been two-fingering it for 25 years?
how many of them have learned how to type in the "conventional" manner
and feel that they have become way better off for having done so?
and why exactly do they feel that way?
why is the world still using the totally obsolete QWERTY design?
...
give that last question a bit more thought than you had originally
planned on giving it.
...
see what it's like to be a creative genius?
...
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> not to mention that the stupid fucking QWERTY keyboard was designed
> for the mechanics of the typewriter, not the optimal positioning of
> letters for typing the human language on a non-mechanical computer.
A pernicious myth. The QWERTY keyboard is not significantly worse than
optimal.
$Zero
i'd be glad to do that if i knew it would eventually be worth the
effort.
within a reasonable amount of time, that is.
after a couple days i would be able to determine if my muscles could
actually do what is necessary.
but the real question is what is the likely improvement of further
practice likely to yield in overall speed improvement? if i knew my
speed would be likely to at least double, i'd be glad to spend months
practicing. if not, i wouldn't bother at all.
beimng that i think way faster than i will ever be able to type, a
doubling of typing speed is the minimum i'd entertain as being worth
my time typing way slower than i already do.
get it?
do the math.
you don't even need to understand Unicornian Logic to see what i'm
saying.
> > > > ...
>
> > > > what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
> > > > of mine?
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
> > > > to be?
>
> > > > how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
>
> > > > is that all it's cracked up to be?
>
> > > Definitely!
>
> > how would you know?
>
> Because I was once in the same boat as you and went through the same
> transition.
so how much faster can you type now?
how many words per minute did you type the old way?
how much faster can you think than you can type?
how many years were you typing the old way?
how many years have you been typing the new way?
what are the benefits you've experienced?
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> to get up to the speed that i'm currently cranking out?
>
> i highly doubt it.
>
How fast can you be with two fingers?
I just tried:
http://www.typeonline.co.uk/typingspeed.php
"Your speed was: 76wpm.
Congratulations! You made no mistakes, practice does make perfect."
Pies de Arcilla
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >after twenty plus years of computing, i'm thinking about learning to
> >type.
>
> >what can i say, i'm a dedicated procrastinator.
>
> >so, after twenty plus years of two-finger typing, can a 46-year-old
> >creative genius actually learn to type without looking at the
> >keyboard?
>
> >(oddly enough, it seems like i don't even look at the keyboard as it
> >is -- i rarely remember doing so anyway, only when i actually think
> >about whether i am or not).
>
> >about how long will it take to get up to a decent speed?
>
> >a couple weeks?
>
> >a couple months?
>
> >any idea?
>
> It's no big deal really. The concept of "home keys" is essential.
When I took a typing class, I found it difficult to stretch from the
home row to certain areas of the keyboard, and once I got past the
part of the class where they were emphasizing that, I went back to my
old style which involves simply holding my hands suspended over the
keyboard and typing.
$Zero
how could you possibly know that?
all of the necessary science needed to design the optimal positional
English language keyboard was not even remotely available during the
development of QWERTY.
we're stupidly stuck with QWERTY just like we're stupidly stuck with
the seven day week and the gas-powered engine and a zillion other
silly nonsensicle culturally structured things.
$Zero
i am now typing from my mind whatever words i am thinking and not the
text i was given because the text given was iurrelevant totally to
what i need to know which is how fast can i type what i am thinking
Your speed was: 48wpm.
You made 40 mistakes, your mistakes are shown in bold text:
heh.
everything was bold excpet three words:
"and", "the", + "the"
Pies de Arcilla
$Zero wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:42�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > $Zero wrote:
> > > not to mention that the stupid fucking QWERTY keyboard was designed
> > > for the mechanics of the typewriter, not the optimal positioning of
> > > letters for typing the human language on a non-mechanical computer.
> >
> > A pernicious myth. The QWERTY keyboard is not significantly worse than
> > optimal.
>
> how could you possibly know that?
>
> all of the necessary science needed to design the optimal positional
> English language keyboard was not even remotely available during the
> development of QWERTY.
>
> we're stupidly stuck with QWERTY just like we're stupidly stuck with
> the seven day week and the gas-powered engine and a zillion other
> silly nonsensicle culturally structured things.
If you type with a Dvorak keyboard, your emails are perfectly
compatible with everybody else in the world, you know. The fact that
there's no lock-in is why I'm certain that the QWERTY keyboard is as
good as any. Let alone Liebowitz and Margolis, which I don't want to
go through again, but feel free to Google.
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 12:42�am, Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > $Zero wrote:
> > > > not to mention that the stupid fucking QWERTY keyboard was designed
> > > > for the mechanics of the typewriter, not the optimal positioning of
> > > > letters for typing the human language on a non-mechanical computer.
>
> > > A pernicious myth. The QWERTY keyboard is not significantly worse than
> > > optimal.
>
> > how could you possibly know that?
>
> > all of the necessary science needed to design the optimal positional
> > English language keyboard was not even remotely available during the
> > development of QWERTY.
>
> > we're stupidly stuck with QWERTY just like we're stupidly stuck with
> > the seven day week and the gas-powered engine and a zillion other
> > silly nonsensicle culturally structured things.
>
> If you type with a Dvorak keyboard,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KB_United_States_Dvorak.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard
well, it's far better designed than the QWERTY, that's for sure.
i like how the least used letters are on the bottom row, which seems
to me is the hardest keystroke to make.
but just off the top of my head, here's how i would tweak that one:
1] put the vowels on the right side, since more people are right-
handed.
2] make the spacebar as small as a regular key (or scrap it
altogether and use a foot pedal instead for the "space" character --
along with a second pedal for your other foot to take care of the
"enter" key -- or pehaps a triple-buttoned pedal on each foot for
periods and commas and whatnot -- or maybe people should learn how to
type with each toe? heh.) and then use the extra space that the stupid
spacebar takes up for some greatly needed function keys like select,
copy, cut, paste, etc.
3] instead of shaping the keyboard like a flat thing you press on,
make it fit the hands like a pair of gloves and use some other method
to sense "key" choices rather than pressing down on keys. that way,
your hands would be perfectly free and you could "type" in mid air.
etc.
etc.
etc.
now i'm going to check out those other keyboards you mentioned.
Bill Penrose
> i'd invest a maximum of two days of practice to determine that, but
> only if i could verify that learning to type differently was worth my
> time in the first place.
Then pack it in now.
DB
$Zero
better yet, create a keybord with much smaller keys on it, grouped
much tighter together so you could fit many more function keys.
then, make fingertip "hats" with narrow needle extentions so that they
allow the users fingers to poke the much smaller and closely spaced
keys without requiring anywhere near the finger movement range needed
to move between rows of keys on a regular keyboard. that way, you
could have twenty rows of options rather than the current five or six
rows on a traditional keyboard. not to mention that increased
functionality that would bring to an increasingly minaturized
computing keyboard world such as iphones and whatnot.
if more rows were not desirable, at least the characters above the
number keys should be split near the top of the the key so that, if
desired, they could be independently pushed without it being mandatory
to simulataneously push the shift key. but pressing the bottom of the
key would yield a number (unless one prefered to use the shift key as
well which would not be disabled so the charcaters above the numbers
could be typed in the traditional way as well.)
but more useful than any of this would be to create a program which
could analize billions of words of typed text in books and articles
and intelligently come up with various key placements (using
statistical analysis) that would be optimal in a truly probablistic
way, something that one could never figure out using just their common
sense.
anyway, the bottomline is that QWERTY is silly.
it was designed with completely different obstacles in mind
(typewriter logistics) and with not nearly enough tools to yield truly
optimal language-based key placement.
anyway, to sum up, using science, and creativity, the "keyboard"
interface could be vastly improved for both speed, accuracy, comfort,
health, communication flow, efficiency, etc.
instead, we're likely to be stuck with QWERTY for many generations,
but only because of factors which have nothing to do with optimal
keyboard design.
and whereas i'm unlikely to learn how to type in the traditional way
due to my own habits, whatever ridicule is directed my way over my
reluctance to change my habits, even if true, those drawbacks only
effect me as a single individual.
sticking with QWERTY out of "laziness" spreads those "bad habits" over
hundreds of years of people everywhere.
see the irony?
> now i'm going to check out those other keyboards you mentioned.
oops.
i misassumed what those other cites of yours were.
how disappointing to find that they were critics of the non-QWERTY
keyboard instead of inventors of the alternate variety of keyboards
that i was expecting to marvel over.
which pretty much rests my case on how stuck we are with QWERTY for no
good reason at all.
$Zero
actually, now that i think about it, the vowels should all be
alternated on the "home" line with some of the consonants (in the most
common ways possible).
for instance:
I N A T E R S Y O U
or something like that.
a computer program would figure out the optimal letter combos by
analyzing billions of sentences in books and news articles and so on,
looking for the most common letter sequences.
it might come up with something like this as the best lay-out:
B D G H L P W L F M
I N A T E R S Y O U
notice the proximity of common letter sequences like:
ING, AND, THE, TER, ERS, OF, IN A, YOU,
actually, maybe there ought to be dedicated function keys for some of
the most common letter sequences and/or words.
ING, THE, AND, SOMETHING, THERE, FUCK, BULLSHIT
heh.
but seriously...
using statistical analysis of real world occurances of sentence letter
sequences, weighted for common human finger strength and flexibility,
it would produce the top two or three configurations and then they
could be tested by various teams of people who are then trained to
learn and use the modified keyboards.
after testing for real world learning ease and use, the computer
program would be modified with that new data and spit out even better
choices until eventually it came up with the best arrangement
possible.
it might take a couple years to work out all of the possible
significant variables, like maybe there's some sort of completely
spread out version of common key sequences that works best simply
because people are mostly irrational emotional beings.
whatever,
point being, the QWERTY design doesn't even come close to letter
placement optimization.
and we're stuck with it.
sammy
No I understand what you're saying. Let's just say its very highly
probable that your typing speed will increase drastically. If you
think about it, using all fingers you barely have to move your hand,
so it is really a more natural way to type.
>
> > > > > ...
>
> > > > > what are the best recommendations you have for this latest crazy idea
> > > > > of mine?
>
> > > > > ...
>
> > > > > is being able to type with your eyes closed as great as i imagine it
> > > > > to be?
>
> > > > > how about the added speed i will be able to eventually enjoy?
>
> > > > > is that all it's cracked up to be?
>
> > > > Definitely!
>
> > > how would you know?
>
> > Because I was once in the same boat as you and went through the same
> > transition.
>
> so how much faster can you type now?
Right now I type in the 70s and 80s and /sometimes/ in the 90s.
> how many words per minute did you type the old way?
Dunno. Maybe 20.
> how much faster can you think than you can type?
Not much faster, honestly.
> how many years were you typing the old way?
Probably 2 or 3.
> how many years have you been typing the new way?
Another 2 or 3.
> what are the benefits you've experienced?
Much faster and accurate typing.
> -$Zero...
>
> threading thru the history of clothing
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/b47c8110c1c59759- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Towse
> point being, the QWERTY design doesn't even come close to letter
> placement optimization.
>
> and we're stuck with it.
But you're not.
You've got Dvorak.
You've got <http://www.newstandardkeyboards.com/>.
You've got the whines.
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > point being, the QWERTY design doesn't even come close to letter
> > placement optimization.
>
> > and we're stuck with it.
>
> But you're not.
i think, below, you've proved that we are indeed stuck with it for the
next several hundred years:
> You've got Dvorak.
not optimal by any means.
and it's just slightly different than QWERTY.
and it's the only other major alternative available.
has it even changed in seventy years since it was first designed?
yikes.
> You've got <http://www.newstandardkeyboards.com/>.
ooo cool, but kinda silly.
though not wisely used in that case, i do like the idea of color-
coding keys:
http://www.newstandardkeyboards.com/files/NSKRainbow1.jpg
> You've got the whines.
yep.
i got lots of those.
and for good reason.
i'm an inventor.
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4